Quite simply I think they should just make a modification or 2 to their 40GB plan, and many (former) users of BT would be happy.

1) 40GB plan but downloads between 2am and 9am don't count towards the cap. The same kind of speeds we got overnight on BT would be plenty. Even if it was between 3am and 7am. A small window, but long enough so that you can download 1-2GB overnight.

OR

2) 40GB but instead of the huge charges for extra data, charge $1/GB. So if you want to use an extra 20GB this month, pay an extra $20 (on top of the extra $10 we will have to pay to go from BT to the 40GB plan).

Telecom are pooring tons of money into this ADSL 2+ role out and I don't think Telecom will want to rate plans since they can't use ADSL 2+ as a selling point. I think that was mentioned earlier.

I think it would just be easier if they kept BigTime as it is set up and changed the Full speed up and down rate to 2mbps/1mbps shaped 24/7.

I don't know how minor of a tweak that is...But if I was behind the table of deciders, that is what I would vote for, considering everyones speed on BigTime was and still is roughly 2.0 to 2.5mbps 24/7 anyway.

DravidDavid: Telecom are pooring tons of money into this ADSL 2+ role out and I don't think Telecom will want to rate plans since they can't use ADSL 2+ as a selling point. I think that was mentioned earlier.

I think it would just be easier if they kept BigTime as it is set up and changed the Full speed up and down rate to 2mbps/1mbps shaped 24/7.

I don't know how minor of a tweak that is...But if I was behind the table of deciders, that is what I would vote for, considering everyones speed on BigTime was and still is roughly 2.0 to 2.5mbps 24/7 anyway.

I agree and further I think splitting peak/off peak is insane. It is a total PITA for the USER to manage. Most users IMHO want simple plans that have certainty to them. I don't mind paying more for my broadband but Pro just does not work for me. I still maintain that plans that equate to $1/GB all up are the way to go, ie:

Simple, elegant and I'm certain very profitable for Telecom.... ----------------

Morning all

While Mauricio has created this thread for suggestions re Big Time, I'm, not sure how productive it is to put forward massive price reductions across all plans, which is what the above post actually does. Above, there is a $20 plan. The $40 plan is PRO. Does that mean that GO is $3, Explorer is $10 and Adventure is $20?

Data cost is one factor, there is a price to be connected, as Telecom Retail and all ISP's pay. That is why Basic, the old low usage plan still had a cost of $29. Little of that is data as you would expect from what was a 200Mb plan, later increassed to 512Mb.

There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some time

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

It probably gets a lot more complex than we are talking about, I imagine the price for data in the cap is "potential" costs, where a user might not use it all so the price can be lower, and where overage is an "actual" cost that will always happen, so has a higher price in comparison.

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

It probably gets a lot more complex than we are talking about, I imagine the price for data in the cap is "potential" costs, where a user might not use it all so the price can be lower, and where overage is an "actual" cost that will always happen, so has a higher price in comparison.

Plus don't forget UBA Port fee's and support/overheads.

Like I said, I am sure at the prices I quoted, all parties would make a profit. The plans would be simple and easy to administer. I hope they at least consider these options. I think the uptake on them would be huge. Plus it stops leechers dead in their tracks...they could offer these in addition to other plans.

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

It probably gets a lot more complex than we are talking about, I imagine the price for data in the cap is "potential" costs, where a user might not use it all so the price can be lower, and where overage is an "actual" cost that will always happen, so has a higher price in comparison.

Plus don't forget UBA Port fee's and support/overheads.

Like I said, I am sure at the prices I quoted, all parties would make a profit. The plans would be simple and easy to administer. I hope they at least consider these options. I think the uptake on them would be huge. Plus it stops leechers dead in their tracks...they could offer these in addition to other plans.

What leads you to believe we could profit on that? Actually, a better question, what do you believe the input costs we have are? Every plan has a level of input costs that must be included and a pricing structure we must comply with.

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

It probably gets a lot more complex than we are talking about, I imagine the price for data in the cap is "potential" costs, where a user might not use it all so the price can be lower, and where overage is an "actual" cost that will always happen, so has a higher price in comparison.

Plus don't forget UBA Port fee's and support/overheads.

Like I said, I am sure at the prices I quoted, all parties would make a profit. The plans would be simple and easy to administer. I hope they at least consider these options. I think the uptake on them would be huge. Plus it stops leechers dead in their tracks...they could offer these in addition to other plans.

What leads you to believe we could profit on that? Actually, a better question, what do you believe the input costs we have are? Every plan has a level of input costs that must be included and a pricing structure we must comply with.

So you are saying you cannot profit at these prices?

The fact that Telecom own half of the SCC and also already own the hard infrastructure to get the connection to the home means that ongoing costs consist primarily of maintenance of existing infrastructure. Sure there are cabinet upgrades to ADSL2 etc but the reality is that people are already paying hansomely for their home/business lines which is almost pure profit for Telecom. Sure, unbundling means each business unit has to be profitable but taken in aggregate I am sure Broadband is VERY profitable for Telecom...your quarterly profit statements would seem to bear this out.

Yes, I have had to make some assumptions based on published international bandwidth costs etc but at the rates I have quoted I would be interested to see a denial from Telecom that those plans are not doable...

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

It probably gets a lot more complex than we are talking about, I imagine the price for data in the cap is "potential" costs, where a user might not use it all so the price can be lower, and where overage is an "actual" cost that will always happen, so has a higher price in comparison.

Plus don't forget UBA Port fee's and support/overheads.

Like I said, I am sure at the prices I quoted, all parties would make a profit. The plans would be simple and easy to administer. I hope they at least consider these options. I think the uptake on them would be huge. Plus it stops leechers dead in their tracks...they could offer these in addition to other plans.

What leads you to believe we could profit on that? Actually, a better question, what do you believe the input costs we have are? Every plan has a level of input costs that must be included and a pricing structure we must comply with.

So you are saying you cannot profit at these prices?

The fact that Telecom own half of the SCC and also already own the hard infrastructure to get the connection to the home means that ongoing costs consist primarily of maintenance of existing infrastructure. Sure there are cabinet upgrades to ADSL2 etc but the reality is that people are already paying hansomely for their home/business lines which is almost pure profit for Telecom. Sure, unbundling means each business unit has to be profitable but taken in aggregate I am sure Broadband is VERY profitable for Telecom...your quarterly profit statements would seem to bear this out.

Yes, I have had to make some assumptions based on published international bandwidth costs etc but at the rates I have quoted I would be interested to see a denial from Telecom that those plans are not doable...

You realise you just made an argument for Telecom Retail to act in a monstrously monopolistic fashion and undercut every other ISP out there?

tdgeek:There is a common talk over $1 per Gb. The cost of the extra data from GO to Explorer is $10 for 7Gb. Explorer to Adventure is $10 for 10Gb, Adventure to Pro is $20 for 20Gb, so the $1 per Gb is, and has been applied for some timeTony

But only in relation to available plan caps, people want overage to charged at this level as well.

It probably gets a lot more complex than we are talking about, I imagine the price for data in the cap is "potential" costs, where a user might not use it all so the price can be lower, and where overage is an "actual" cost that will always happen, so has a higher price in comparison.

Plus don't forget UBA Port fee's and support/overheads.

Like I said, I am sure at the prices I quoted, all parties would make a profit. The plans would be simple and easy to administer. I hope they at least consider these options. I think the uptake on them would be huge. Plus it stops leechers dead in their tracks...they could offer these in addition to other plans.

What leads you to believe we could profit on that? Actually, a better question, what do you believe the input costs we have are? Every plan has a level of input costs that must be included and a pricing structure we must comply with.

So you are saying you cannot profit at these prices?

The fact that Telecom own half of the SCC and also already own the hard infrastructure to get the connection to the home means that ongoing costs consist primarily of maintenance of existing infrastructure. Sure there are cabinet upgrades to ADSL2 etc but the reality is that people are already paying hansomely for their home/business lines which is almost pure profit for Telecom. Sure, unbundling means each business unit has to be profitable but taken in aggregate I am sure Broadband is VERY profitable for Telecom...your quarterly profit statements would seem to bear this out.

Yes, I have had to make some assumptions based on published international bandwidth costs etc but at the rates I have quoted I would be interested to see a denial from Telecom that those plans are not doable...

You realise you just made an argument for Telecom Retail to act in a monstrously monopolistic fashion and undercut every other ISP out there?

A spade is a spade. Telecom IS a monopoly! It is what it is. The customer should at least benefit from it somehow. Plus, if their wholesale prices reflected their market reality then other ISP's would benefit too...